Ventura v. State, 98-2061.

Decision Date22 September 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-2061.,98-2061.
Citation741 So.2d 1187
PartiesErnesto VENTURA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and SHEVIN, JJ.

COPE, J.

Defendant-appellant Ernesto Ventura appeals the sentence imposed after he failed to comply with certain provisions of his plea agreement. We reverse.

In July 1997 defendant entered into a substantial assistance plea under which, if he failed to appear for sentencing, he would be subject to a 60-year habitual offender sentence. Defendant was represented by privately-retained counsel, George Garcia. Defendant did not appear and a capias warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant was subsequently arrested and a sentencing hearing was held in June 1998.

At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Garcia stated only that he had not been in contact with defendant since the July 1997 hearing on the substantial assistance agreement. Mr. Garcia did not offer any statement or evidence on behalf of defendant. Defendant then told the court that he had retained new counsel Sy Gaer, to attend the hearing and speak on his behalf. Because Mr. Gaer had not filed an appearance on behalf of defendant and was not present in the courtroom, the trial court refused to postpone the proceedings and imposed sentence. The court said it would make no difference in any event because the court interpreted the substantial assistance agreement to call for a 60-year sentence, regardless of the circumstances. Defendant asked the court for the opportunity to speak. The court refused that request as well. Defendant was sentenced to the 60-year habitual offender sentence and has appealed. We now reverse.

First, when defendant informed the trial court that he had retained new counsel, the court should have recessed the sentencing hearing to verify the retention and, if true, allowed new counsel to appear and be heard. Second, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b), before imposing sentence the trial court is required to "entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence." Under the rule, defendant was entitled to make a statement to the court. See Culbertson v. State, 306 So.2d 142, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)

. As we view the matter, the opportunity to address the court must be allowed even if the case involves a mandatory sentence. Respecting the right of the defendant to address the court "maximiz[es] the perceived...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Ryan v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 26, 2011
    ...preserving, as a practical matter, his appellate rights) and a defendant's right to allocution before sentencing. See Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Barry v. State, 330 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(b). A defendant who maintains his innocence and......
  • Hill v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 25, 2018
    ...Davis v. State , 642 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ; Hargis v. State , 451 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Ventura v. State , 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (emphasis added).In an analogous case that was also cited as a basis for this court's ruling in Jean–Baptiste , the F......
  • Jean-Baptiste v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 28, 2015
    ...court. Dean v. State, 60 So.3d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ; Chillingworth v. State, 846 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ; Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We previously determined that the trial court “departed from the essential requirements set forth in rule 3.720(b) ” wher......
  • Chillingworth v. State, 4D02-439.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 4, 2003
    ...that are relevant to the sentence. Under the rule, the defendant was entitled to make a statement to the court," Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), as well as present matters in mitigation. Hargis v. State, 451 So.2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Here, the defendant had a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT